-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:
> I don't understand, first you say it's impractical for any application
> to check for syntax errors, then you say it's probably not impractical
> but you don't require it anyway and now you say of course, in the end,
> implementations should check for syntax errors.
Sorry, the last clause is _not_ what I said. I think it's entirely
reasonable to distinguish between implementations of XLink itself, and
the libraries it uses to access implementations of _other_ specs and
RFCs which it depends on. We do _not_ require the XLink
implementation itself to enforce 3986 syntax constraints. It's not
necessary or appropriate for the XLink spec. to say "Of course, all
libraries you use should be conformant implementations of whatever it
is that they implement". It's a question of subsidiarity, to use a
phrase popular in Europe not long ago.
> If you think that some web agent implementing XLink 1.1 should not
> recover silently from URI syntax errors in XLink markup then including
> specific language that no such checking is required makes no sense at
> all, implementers would only read that as an encouragement to recover
> silently from syntax errors. So what is your point?
I also don't think it's necessary or appropriate to say in this or any
other spec "If one of the libraries you use detects and signals an
error with respect to whatever spec or RFC it is that they implement,
you should not suppress that error signal."
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD19DbkjnJixAXWBoRAjSvAJ9169ctyUirwBSXBU3aEzORJhSFhwCdHQ+z
ZG+4vSSYYU/CHMTgiubHU9k=
=fttz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----